On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> ... I think at the next developer meeting we're going to >> get to hear Tom argue that overlapping the end of beta with the >> beginning of the next release cycle is a mistake and we should go back >> to the old system where we yell at everyone to shut up unless they're >> helping test or fix bugs. > > I think we have already got quite enough evidence to conclude that this > approach is broken. Not only does it appear that hardly anybody but me > is actively working on stabilizing 9.1, but I'm wasting quite a bit of > my time trying to keep Simon from destabilizing it; to say nothing of > reacting to design proposals for 9.2 work (or else feeling guilty > because I'm ignoring them, which is in fact what I've mostly been > doing). > > As a measure of how completely this is not working: I've had "read the > SSI code" as a number one priority item for about two months now, and > still haven't found time to read one line of it. > >> Everyone who is arguing for the inclusion of this patch in 9.1 should >> take a minute to think about the following fact: If the PostgreSQL >> development process does not work for Tom, it does not work. > > I'd like to think that I'm not the sole driver of this process. > However, if everybody else is going to start playing in their 9.2 > sandbox and ignore getting a release out, then yeah it comes down > to how much bandwidth I've got. And that's finite.
I plead guilty to taking my eye off the ball post-beta1. I busted my ass for two months stabilizing other people's code after CF4 was over, and then I moved on to other things. I will try to get my eye back on the ball - but actually I'm not sure there's all that much to do. A quick review of the open items list suggests that we have fixed a total of six issues since beta1, as opposed to 47 prior to beta1. And all of those are being handled (two by you). I also don't see much in the way of unanswered 9.1 bug reports on pgsql-bugs, either. There may well be other open items, and I'm not unwilling to work on them, but I don't read minds. What needs doing? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
